Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-4 Phantom II

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

F-4 Phantom II[edit]

Considerably rewritten and expanded, addressing all concerns raised in the Peer Review and previous FAC attempt and more. A detailed overview of history and service of this Cold War icon. This is a self-nom of sorts as I am the primary contributor to the current revision. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a great article on great fighter. Just two points from me:

  • Is it possible to have a table of contents please? Those list-like entries are kinda creepy :)
  • I would appreciate a section/paragraph/whatever on the Wild Weasel variant. If memory serves, these aircraft were completely "undressed" and modified in order to be converted. Plus, it is a role which is slightly different.
  • I'm not convinced by "comparable aircraft"... Mig-21 is 2 times lighter and much smaller than the F-4, so while they may fulfill similar roles (just as all fighters do, they're not really in the same category). Just a thought, maybe I'm wrong so I don't insist :)

Overall, a great article worthy of FA! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I went to the list-like entries because the TOC was gigantic. I think this is much tidier. The Wild Weasel is discussed briefly in the Gulf War section and I made it a separate bullet in the variants summary. All variants are covered in more detail in F-4 Phantom II variants. In truth, there was nothing directly comparable to the Phantom when it came out. MiG-21 and EE Lightning were the closest in mission and performance. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object:

  • The "Operators" section is redundant with the entire "Phantom in foreign service" section, no? I can't see any reason to give the same list of countries twice.
  • Footnote 6 seems misplaced. I'm assuming it's meant to apply to the entire section; but footnotes are usually placed after the relevant material.

Other than that, great article! Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected both issues. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, support from me now! Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fine article. Rlevse 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, having corrected a typo. DCB4W 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article, but I object until formatting and a few other issues are fixed. This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers. In the first level 2 section, use perhaps "Origins", "Testing and production", and "Records". Also, no bold outside of the first sentence of the lead please. Citations follow punctuation,[1] like this.[2] As for units, I've fixed the lead to comply with WP:MoS, try to make the rest similar (abbreviate only the conversion, and use   between the number and the abbreviation). "Contemporary United States dollars" needs to be defined (what year was the book published that says those numbers?). Also, the F-4 in fiction section is lackluster; anything to add there or can it just be removed? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will work on making those improvements. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented all of your recommendations. Please re-evaluate and comment. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, but I think there are now too many subsections (the table of contents is quite long considering the size of the article). Perhaps the subsections for each individual country could be changed to subsections for each region (Europe, Asia, Middle East, Australia), and a few of the subsections in the development section should be combined. Is there a way to combine Nicknames and The Spook? They're both short and somewhat related, but I can't think of a good section name that would cover both of them at the moment. Also, there is still alot of bold within the prose; that needs to be removed. If something needs emphasis, use italics, but it's almost always unnecessary. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Related content" should be renamed "See also" and moved above the references as per WP:MOSHEAD. Its subsections should be eliminated as well. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason why I was using bold words rather than == tags which produced a very compact TOC. Then you came in and expanded it back. Now you don't like it. Please make up your mind. The TOC is an optional element and can be turned off if users don't like it, so I would prefer to stop messing with the headings altogether. Check the box in your Preferences if it bothers you. Combining sections and compromising clarity and organization for the sake of shrinking the TOC is an absolute no go. The Spook, the nicknames, and all the separate countries are distinct elements and should not be clumped together because Wiki TOCs suck. I'll work on the bold text. The Related content section is per WP:Air MOS, template-encoded, and will stay. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I think the use of bold is appropriate to highlight the first mention of a new variant or a special project. It improves legibility and makes it easy to find the appropriate text segment by quickly scanning the page. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been perfectly consistent. I said "This should use subsections, but not as many subsections as you have bold headers." You turned all your bold headers into subsections, and now complain that I'm having difficulty making up my mind. Did I miss something? The TOC is visible to virtually all users, and must concisely note the key components of the article. Level three sections that are only several lines long are not key components. Everything I have suggested is in line with WP:MOS and is identical to what I suggest on all articles that look like this. And please take a look at WP:CON; terms like "absolute" and "will stay" have no place around here, especially when the things they refer to are not commonly accepted practice. Since my opinions are apparently not of any more use to you, I'll quit commenting unless you ask on my talk page for more input. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll shrink the TOC again. Your other recommendations contradict the consensus-derived WP:Air MoS, which differs from the general WP:MoS in order to provide better subject-specific coverage. As for "absolutely," I stand by my words -- it makes no sense to collapse distinct sections of text into a run-on heap for the sake of a shorter TOC. Sorry I upset you and thanks for your feedback -- it is sincerely appreciated even if not followed to the T. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Overall a very well done article. Coffeeboy 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support My only suggestion for improvement to this excellent article is that the 'Phantom in foreign service' section be re-named 'Phantom in non-US service' to remove a minor US bias (though the F-4 is, of course, an American designed and built aircraft which was used in the largest numbers by the US military) --Nick Dowling 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I'll implement it. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/F-4_Phantom_II&oldid=1080991261"